israel4ever Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 I need to catch up on things here, who would he nominate for the Court, and what is the stance that gets the thumbs up??? We don't need any more consaervatives on the Bench. 1. I am "Pro-Choice" 2. We (the US) cannot afford to give up any more civil liberties. (i.e. "Patriot Act, and/or Freedom of Speech (see what the "G" is doing to Howard Stern?!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighHeat45 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 This is the first election I'm able to vote in, and I'm really not sure I want to. I really don't see anything about either candidate that stands out right now; we'll see. Bush is going to win the state anyways. Then vote Nader, its pretty much the same thing as not voting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 The vote doesn't surprise me at all. SOXTALK has proven time & again to slant to the left. It's sort of like the debate of the cub media bias. There are 5 cub fans for every 3 sox fans in Chicago, yet the Cubs get an 8 to 3 space differential in the paper daily. But of course there's no cub bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1549 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 I am extremely moderate. And I believe I actually lean liberal on most things. However when neither candidate meets my criteria my vote would go to the incumbent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 I need to catch up on things here, who would he nominate for the Court, and what is the stance that gets the thumbs up??? It's not about who specifically would be appointed, its about the likelihood that, as per previous appointees (a process which was summarily halted under Bush in the early 1990s and was not restarted by Clinton either) the appointments would not be made with litmus tests on being pro life or pro choice... etc. Kerry has gone so far to say that he wouldn't use a Pro Choice litmus test for his judicial nominees, and that he would consider Pro Life judges. I have to make a choice between the person I would rather have making nominations to the court. Bush has shown little willingness to compromise on his ideology for the good of the country... take into account the administration's attempts to fight Iraq rather than meaningful battles in the war on terror. Link. Somehow I think this tendency would carry over to the Supreme Court nomination process. Kerry has yet to prove to me that his nominees would be more ideologically rigid. Further, his ideology leans closer to mine than Bush's and so if it were, his supreme court would be one I prefer. Oh yeah, and I can't vote for a president who doesn't wanna see me married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Well, I'm pretty much a Pro-Life kind of guy myself. Though I find anybody who runs around saying they are either "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice" a little scary. I din't think anybody can be either unless they are in the situation themselves and know the whole story. But abortion as birth control shows that we as a race are f***ing idiots. But many things prove that. But that is off topic. Oh, and in my opinion it is just wacky that the whole marriage thing is silly. I am guessing that we are talking the whole "Gay Marriage" thing? Ya know, I'm straight, and the way I see it is if it is going to make people...god forbid...HAPPY, then how can it be bad??? Nobody gets hurt, right? Or, wait, for every gay couple married, does that mean a straight person has to be flogged for an hour? If so, then depending on who said flogged person is, I am against it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 It's not about who specifically would be appointed, its about the likelihood that, as per previous appointees (a process which was summarily halted under Bush in the early 1990s and was not restarted by Clinton either) the appointments would not be made with litmus tests on being pro life or pro choice... etc. Kerry has gone so far to say that he wouldn't use a Pro Choice litmus test for his judicial nominees, and that he would consider Pro Life judges. I have to make a choice between the person I would rather have making nominations to the court. Bush has shown little willingness to compromise on his ideology for the good of the country... take into account the administration's attempts to fight Iraq rather than meaningful battles in the war on terror. Link. Somehow I think this tendency would carry over to the Supreme Court nomination process. Kerry has yet to prove to me that his nominees would be more ideologically rigid. Further, his ideology leans closer to mine than Bush's and so if it were, his supreme court would be one I prefer. Oh yeah, and I can't vote for a president who doesn't wanna see me married. Do we want important decisions like who the Justices should be made by a President who "talks to G-d" for advice??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Well, I'm pretty much a Pro-Life kind of guy myself. Though I find anybody who runs around saying they are either "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice" a little scary. I din't think anybody can be either unless they are in the situation themselves and know the whole story. But abortion as birth control shows that we as a race are f***ing idiots. But many things prove that. But that is off topic. Oh, and in my opinion it is just wacky that the whole marriage thing is silly. I am guessing that we are talking the whole "Gay Marriage" thing? Ya know, I'm straight, and the way I see it is if it is going to make people...god forbid...HAPPY, then how can it be bad??? Nobody gets hurt, right? Or, wait, for every gay couple married, does that mean a straight person has to be flogged for an hour? If so, then depending on who said flogged person is, I am against it! How can we as a society say that gay marriages make a sham of marriage, when we have shows like "Who Wants to MArry a Millionaire?" "Midget", "Joe Bachelor", etc? I say live and let live...we need MORE freedoms in the US, not less! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 aint that the truth israel, I'm going Kerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confederate_48 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Bush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Illinois will almost definitely go Kerry, so I'm going to look at 3rd party candidates. If I don't like any much, Kerry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxman352000 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Bush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 I doubt very much in the age of modern medicine any of these guys will nominate new US SC justices. But if that happened I would want a president who is more likely to nominate a judge that will respect the majority of Americans then one who will place his own ideology above all else. In that respect we now have a 40 yr history of the harm liberal activist judges can do with respect to democracy. I also would like to see people nominated who believe as I do that the time has come to remove the life terms associated with judgeships around the nation. As a nation that continues to evolve in the mold of science & technology we should be moving closer to real democracy. The life terms of judges plays against that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 I doubt very much in the age of modern medicine any of these guys will nominate new US SC justices. But if that happened I would want a president who is more likely to nominate a judge that will respect the majority of Americans then one who will place his own ideology above all else. In that respect we now have a 40 yr history of the harm liberal activist judges can do with respect to democracy. I also would like to see people nominated who believe as I do that the time has come to remove the life terms associated with judgeships around the nation. As a nation that continues to evolve in the mold of science & technology we should be moving closer to real democracy. The life terms of judges plays against that. Juggs, Please list the "40 yr history of the harm liberal activist judges can do with respect to democracy." Are we talking civil rights? abortion? Brown v. the School Board?, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Juggs, Please list the "40 yr history of the harm liberal activist judges can do with respect to democracy." Are we talking civil rights? abortion? Brown v. the School Board?, You are talking ideologies & I am talking principles. Harm in terms of the principle of democracy is whenever a judge makes a ruling that goes against popular majority opinion. It matters not what the ideology of that opinion is. That's the difference between an objective & subjective argument. In terms of your subjective arguments here is my response: civil rights: There is no evidence that the civil rights movement of the 50's & 60's was not supported by popular majority opinion. I think this is the biggest fallacy by the left in trying to link the civil rights movement with their cause. The plain simple fact of the matter is that the movement would not have taken off as it did if there were not prominent people in the majority supporting it. abortion: It is a fact that Roe v Wade led to abortion on demand in the USA. Now that might be part of your ideology but better than 2/3rd's of Americans are against abortion on demand. This is a perfect example where the ruling was not as important as the summary. The summary should have been written such that the court discouraged the use of abortion as a method of birth control. In other words uphold the constitutionality of a law but don't encourage. Not unlike the sodomy issue that recently went before the court. If you don't think the summary opinions are not important than you must never have studied law. School prayer: This is a perfect example of the harm of a liberal activist judge. This ruling PREVENTING the majority from EXERCISING their freedom of religion. Now it might be your opinion & ideology that limiting the freedom of millions of a children to sanctify the rights of a few is a noteworthy cause but again it is only your opinion. Recent polls & surveys on the subject show that the majority of Americans never had a problem with school prayer in the public schools. It was never considered a GROSS misconduct of majority rights vs minority/indiv ones. We likewise have a 30 yr history now of public school performance since prayer was removed. Now I'm not suggesting that school prayer had any affect on that performance, but the numbers do paint a compelling before & after picture. If school prayer was the symbol for discipline in the school it's absence. Now since all of these decisions affect the young more so than the old, which area should we look at to measure the effect of the decisions: 1) avg age of criminals in America 2) % of criminal behavior in America's schools 3) # of abortions by school children 4) % of STD by school children 5) % of children on Ritalin or other benavior controlling substances 6) % of rageful students in schools The facts are pretty clear: the decisions by liberal activist judges that clearly went against the popular majority opinion has served to impact society towards being less disciplined & more irresponsible. The plain simple fact of the matter is that as a citizen of this country you are either married to democracy for better or for worse or you are not a real citizen. America was never intended to be a socialist nation where the ideologies of a few dictate to the rest. It was always intended to be a a govt of the people, by the people, & for the people first & foremost. Those people by & large have grow smarter & more wiser to where they should have a more active role. Having voters weigh in on the retention of judges at the federal level would go along weigh to strengthening democracy in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.